Previous 3 / 16 Next

6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly amount of Php152,670.00, which amount once in her possession, with intent to defraud, misappropriated, misapplied, and converted to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said GLENDA S. MARQUEZ in the aforesaid amount of Php152,670.00, Philippine Currency. Contrary to law.[12] The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On December 11, 2008, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner. On April 15, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information[13] in Criminal Case No. 08-265540, arguing that she was deprived of her right to seek reconsideration or reinvestigation of the public prosecutor's resolution as she was not furnished a copy thereof.[14] Also, petitioner argued that the. City Prosecutor of Manila had no jurisdiction over the case as the alleged crime was committed in Kidapawan City. In an Order[15] dated May 13, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 08-265540, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55, denied petitioner's Motion to Quash, ruling that the ground relied upon by the petitioner in the said motion is not one of those enumerated under Section 3[16], Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for quashing a complaint or information.[17] As to the jurisdictional issue, the RTC ruled that it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8042[18] (RA 8042), which explicitly states that: A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense xxx. (underscoring supplied for emphasis)[19] Since complainant is a resident of Manila, the RTC ruled that the second ground interposed by the petitioner is devoid of merit.[20] Thus: In view of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[21] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/63079 3/16

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Eileen P. David vs. Glenda S. Marquez

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 209859

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Jun 5, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

Nature of the case: ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

MRO Case Type

Estafa
Illegal recruitment
Petition for review on Certiorari by the Supreme Court (Rule 45 of the Rules of Court)

Summary of outcome: This case is procedural in nature. Complainant Glenda S. Marquez's actions for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against Eileen P. David were quashed before the lower court (Regional Trial Court), which ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases.

While ordinarily, venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, and that actions should be filed in the locality or place where the offense occurred, an exception lies under Republic Act No. 8042 (or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act"), which provides that a criminal action arising from illegal recruitment may be filed in the place where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

Since the Supreme Court established that the RTC has jurisdiction over the Illegal Recruitment and Estafa cases, it ordered the trial court to resume hearing the cases.

Observatory: Migrant Workers Rights

Ponente: TIJAM, J.

Notes: The acts complained of took place in Kidapawan City, Cotabato.

Primary Documents

2017_Eileen P. David vs. Glenda S. Marquez,_June.pdf
english
Download View